On Tue, 12 May 2015, Sean Hunt wrote: > On May 11, 2015 19:02, "Alex Smith" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sun, 2015-05-10 at 13:25 +0200, Luis Ressel wrote: > > > ID Author(s) AI Title > > > ------------------------------------------- > > I vote as follows: > > > 7745* scshunt 2.0 Official Functions > > AGAINST; this implies that if an officer misses last week's report and I > > take over from them this week, I then have to publish both last week's > > and this week's reports, which doesn't fit common practice and is > > kind-of redundant. Clarifying this would be helpful, but I'd rather > > prefer to 217 it than to have an incorrect clarification. > > Current practice is that publishing one report fulfills all outstanding > obligations to publish reports. My proposal does not change the rules in > this regard.
It's not in the rules, but it's an old precedent around *timed* reports. Whenever you publish a report in a given week, it is (by definition) a report for that week. One CANNOT publish a report in a previous week. So even if the rule is interpreted as saying you're required to publish "last week's" report, it's IMPOSSIBLE to do so. -G.
